Yesterday’s 24 minute Spotlight program was rather like a three-way conversation with the Teheran based moderator Marzieh Hashemi and Canada based fellow panelist, Yves Engler. The moderator was pitching to us the official Iranian position on what was achieved and sought our agreement or disagreement, as the case may be.
The main points in the official position are that the Iranian attack was justified under the terms of the UN Charter article 51 regarding each state’s right to self-defense; that the attack was intended to send a clear message to Israel that Iranian missiles can penetrate its Iron Dome and reach their designated targets, and that Teheran intentionally kept destruction to a minimum by giving advance notice of the attack and concentrating on two military sites while sparing civilians
See Punishment promise fulfilled
| | Punishment promise fulfilledPunishment promise fulfilled |
|
|
Transcript below by a reader
Marzieh Hashemi 0:21
Hello, and welcome to PressTV Spotlight. I'm Marzieh Hashemi. Thanks so much for being with us. Well, Iran, in an impressive display of strength, accuracy and technological prowess, sent hundreds of drones and missiles towards the Zionist-occupied territories during its retaliatory operation against the regime. Despite the Iron Dome and help from the United States, the UK, France and Jordan, in shooting down the drones, the Iranian missiles hit their targets, which were two bases, the Neverton military base and the Ramon Air Base were hit with accuracy. The paradigm in the region has been changed. What does it mean for the regime, the region, and the world? Stay with us as we take a look at all of this on the Spotlight.
I'd like to welcome my guests to the program. Out of Montreal, Yves Engler, author and political activist. And out of Brussels, Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst.
Well thank you both for being with me. Let's start this off in Montreal. And Yves, well, Iran's retaliatory operation was initiated due to the Israeli regime's attack on Iran's consular section of the embassy in Damascus on April the 1st. Now. Tehran has cited Article 51, the Charter of the United Nations, and its right to self-defense. Your assessment of Iran's right to have carried out this strike?
Yves Engler 1:58
Well, I'm not a lawyer or an expert in international law, but clearly Israel violated Iranian sovereignty in murdering a number of Iranian officials, including top generals, two weeks ago. So-- and Israel has, of course, you know, killed many Iranians in Syria over recent years and also even is alleged to have been behind a whole series of operations within Iran that have killed different officials over the years. So, I think that it's clear that Israel violated international law, and it seems at least a plausible argument that Iran had the right, according to international law, to respond to Israel's aggression. So, you know, again, I'm not a lawyer, but on the surface of it, it seems that Iran obviously had a right to respond to Israel's crass, brazen violation of international law.
Marzieh Hashemi: 3:09
Okay. Well, Gilbert, there are major attempts now to downplay the success of Iran's True Promise operation. What is your perspective regarding the operation and the overall effectiveness of the strike?
Gilbert Doctorow 3:24
I think the operation has to be looked at on two levels, tactical and strategic. It was the tactical level, at a minimum, the Iranian attack provided important intelligence information to Iran on the components and the location of those components in the Israeli Iron Dome and air defense levels, because they have several different systems in operation. At the tactical level, the mission was disputed, as you have noted, that Iran claimed success in hitting its two military objects that were essential to its retaliatory response, whereas Western media tend to ignore or even to deny that any significant damage was done. That remains to be appraised in the future.
However, the very fact that Iran responded in this way, that in the first time ever in its history has directly struck the territory of Israel, thus sent a message through the whole community in the Middle East, which has a strategic level of importance, namely the clear warning that Iran issued, and that has to be taken seriously given the actions of this past weekend, is the warning that it made to other Gulf states, and in particular states which are home to American military bases and operational centers such as Bahrain is.
And these warnings were that if you facilitate the counter-attack that one may expect or think will happen from Israel in response to this weekend's massive drone and ballistic missile and cruise missile attack on Israel-- if you facilitate an Israeli response, we will bomb you. The fact is that none of the players in the news wants to be brought into the war directly. And so what has happened as a consequence of this exercise by Iran, a limited exercise over the weekend, is that the neighbors are withdrawing their permission for the United States to operate and to use the airspace of these countries to support Israel in any future counterattack.
Now, that is something that Iran has strived to achieve over decades, and it seems to have been achieved in one weekend. So at a tactical level, there may be disputes over what was actually done on the ground. There is no dispute that Iran showed it is capable of, self-confident in pursuing a military confrontation with Israel, if that is what has to happen. And at a strategic level, it has changed the game in the Middle East, because all the neighboring states have backed away from the United States.
Marzieh Hashemi: 6:43
OK. Well, Yves, no country has dared to attack inside of the Israeli regime, to the Western hegemonic front's unwavering support for the regime. But Iran chose to do it, and has been effective. Now, your thoughts on the overall attack, and is it a game changer? Iran was able to penetrate several layers of defense from the regime itself and also from the United States, France, the UK and Jordan. That in itself is extremely effective. Your thoughts?
Yves Engler: 7:23
Well, I agree with my co-panelist's assessment to a large extent. I think this is significant. There's a kind of two different angles being done in the Canadian and Western media. On one hand, saying that Iran has drastically escalated things, and then at the same time saying that Iran has been unsuccessful, which is a little bit in contradiction with each other. So, you know, whether this is going to be a game changer for the region, I'm a little bit hesitant on that front. I think that ... I'm made scared by the situation, because I think that there really are fanatics in charge of the Israeli government and military.
And I think that even if the U.S. and others have tried to warn Israel to not do something really crazy in response, I think there's a decent chance that the Netanyahu government will do a-- launch something that is a huge escalation from an already tense situation, and that could spiral into something even bigger. But I think that to me, the hope here is that Israel is restrained in terms of its response to Iran, and also that Israel and the other countries in the region that have, like Jordan for instance, that, you know, helped shoot down drones, that this puts a whole lot of pressure on that government to do more to end the genocide in Gaza, and that Israel is put more on the back foot in its policy in Gaza. But at this point, I don't think it's clear, you know, what the Israeli reaction is going to be, and if the most crazy elements of the Israeli government will be restrained.
Marzieh Hashemi: 9:45
Hmm. Okay, well, Gilbert, Iran says its goals of the operation were deterring, punishing, and warning the Zionist regime. Do you think that it reached its goals?
Gilbert Doctorow: 9:58
I think it has. Of course, we'll know in the coming days whether the Israeli government acts rationally or pursues an emotional response that is self-destructive. It has been stated in the Western press that the Iranian attack was the largest-in-scale use of drones and other missiles to a single day. This was 320 or something like that, missiles and other objects sent away to Israel. However, let's look at the numbers. This is a numbers game. And you have to consider that the potential of Iran to deliver a devastating or more than one devastating attack on the very compact geography of Israel is overwhelmingly clear.
The numbers of missiles in the Iranian inventory-- including the most recent, most modern, and most destructive missiles that number several thousand-- can be as many as 10,000. So in this respect, what happened over the weekend was only indicative and a warning of what can come. There is no way that a massive, genuinely massive, missile strike against Israel can be turned back by an Iron Dome or any other air defense system. So in this context any action by Israel that wants to be a macho is going to be self-destructive.
Marzieh Hashemi: 11:44
Okay, well your thoughts about that, Yves, because if, according to Gilbert, if the Israeli regime understands that any action they will take will be self-destructive-- because I want to go back to what you said, and when you talked about the regime and the possibility of actually now them initiating an attack. But how logical would that be, when even Iran has not used its more sophisticated missiles, but still were able to penetrate?
Now Iran is saying that it did not want to cause any major damage, it wanted to send a message, and it sent that message by hitting those two bases. It also did not want to hit any civilian areas, which perhaps can be a lesson for the Israeli regime. Your thoughts on that side of things.
Yves Engler: 12:35
Well, I think the Israelis are caught, because the Israelis want to-- this, you know, psycho power that unleashes far more destruction on anyone else than is ever committed on them is part of their whole raison d'etre, how they operate. And obviously we see that in Gaza, that in response to the October 7th, they feel the need to demonstrate how violent and try to scare the whole region. So Israel wants to operate like that. So I think the general ethos from the Israeli government is going to be to respond in that way. And also, I think the fact that they are failing in their stated objectives in Gaza, in that they haven't got the hostages and Hamas is still able to operate, that that makes them want to lash out even more.
But I agree that the likely response, if Israel does go, let's call it crazy, in its response to Iran, then there's going to be a lot of damage in Israel. And the Israeli public is, you know, their little bubble's going to burst. The reality is, even despite October 7th, Israelis have lived a fairly quiet existence while occupying and brutalizing Palestinians. But, you know, I wouldn't, unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past the Netanyahu government to pursue something that's on the very escalatory side of a response. I would assume there's going to be some response from Israel. I don't think Israel is going to be able to not respond in any way.
But, yeah, I mean, I think that the Israeli military and the Israeli government are caught in a difficult position from their standpoint, in that they want to be the bully that gets to do all the killing and gets to do all the damage and not have any impact or very little impact on Israeli society. And now they've been confronted with the fact that much of Israel could be destroyed if they try to, you know, keep up that that bully posture.
Marzieh Hashemi: 15:15
Hmm. Well Gilbert, Iran has said that they have not shown the most of their ability. They just wanted to send this message and serve as a deterrent. However, that if the Israeli regime continues with its aggression, that it will definitely respond in much harsher ways inside of the regime. Your thoughts about, first of all, what Iran is saying, and second of all, how likely can that serve as a deterrent in itself?
Gilbert Doctorow: 15:51
Well, the Israelis are very dependent on the United States and other allies to enable their very powerful armed forces, to maintain that posture of strength. And as the warning of Iran regarding how it will behave, should there be a forceful Israeli response to this latest weekend's events, that has, as I said, frightened the neighborhood and sobered up the neighborhood, so that they are stepping away from the United States.
But Mr. Biden has urged caution on Israel. It is not a matter of his humanitarian disposition. It is a realization that American bases in the neighborhood are hostage to Israeli actions. And the head of the regional operational center for the United States is under threat. The base of the 5th Fleet is under threat, under massive threat that Iran can carry out, depending on what the Israelis do next.
Now if we have to look at what the Israelis would like to do, what Netanyahu would like to do, we don't have to guess. He has talked about it for the last five or ten years. He would like to destroy the alleged Iranian nuclear program, that is, weaponry. And here Mr. Netanyahu is totally dependent on American support. Because the facilities in Iran are at a great distance from Israel, and Israeli planes can achieve missions only with the help of American tanker planes. Mr. Biden would have to then be in the midst of any Israeli attack and it's hardly credible that he will do that now, given the vulnerability of American assets in the region.
So what Israelis could do, how they could realize their dreams, it is unforeseeable, it is improbable that their dreams can be fulfilled, that they can do damage of a great significance to Iran. Iran is vastly larger, it is ten times bigger in population. It is inconceivable that Israel could deliver a damage to Iran that would not be immediately turned into destruction of Israel. So I think that however hotheads may exist in the Israeli cabinet-- there are at least two of them who are quite prominent in their rabid remarks-- I don't think that they can prevail against the common sense and the sense of self-preservation of their colleagues.
Marzieh Hashemi: 19:01
Well, your thoughts, Yves, on the significance of the United States not getting involved and coming so far to the aid of the Zionists to attack Iran. Gilbert pointed out some points, but I'd like to hear your perspective.
Yves Engler: 19:14
Well, I mean, the U.S. did help in shooting down and destroying some of the drones and missiles. So the U.S. has provided help, and they, of course, provide innumerable forms of support to the Israeli military at all times, and intelligence and weapons, et cetera, et cetera. Whether they will enable, directly enable Israel to strike nuclear facilities in Iran, I would venture to guess they won't. I agree with that. You know, we don't know, the U.S. tried to say they had no role in the attack on April 1st. I don't know if that's correct or not. In a direct sense, it may be correct, but you know, indirectly, there's so many ways in which they enabled Israeli military and also the fact that they failed to condemn the attack, you know, a sort of tacit endorsement of what Israel did.
I think the U.S. is divided. Also, I think this is, you know, one of the things that Israel obviously wants to draw the U.S. into fighting Iran as much as possible, and I don't think it's just around destroying, you know, alleged nuclear program. I think they would probably like-- Israel would like to see the U.S. just, you know, destroy Iran generally, but-- and certainly, you know, destroy as much of its military as possible. I still think that the, you know, Biden is so wildly pro-Israel and there's so many of the upper echelons of his administration that are so wildly pro-Israel-- and so much of the Republican and the political culture in the U.S. is so pro-Israel-- I think there's still a possibility here that Israel does something, you know, very aggressive in its response and the U.S. is sucked into defending Israel and fighting Iran in a more, in a direct sense.
So, I think that that's definitely a possibility. And it's just so many ways in which all that can escalate, too. I mean, you know, the more bombings in Syria, and there's obviously Russian forces in Syria, and you can draw in, obviously, you know, Hezbollah will be part of this. But there's a lot of ways in which this can escalate quite quickly. But I don't think that, I wouldn't put it past the fact that the Biden administration will end up being directly involved against Iran on behalf of Israel.
Marzieh Hashemi: 21:58
Your thoughts, Gilbert, on where this could go. Because on the one hand, we have the resistance front and their allies. We're looking at, of course, the traditional resistance front. We also have Russia and China now coming out and supporting Iran's right to initiate that retaliatory attack. I mean, your overall assessment of where this can go at this point in time.
Gilbert Doctorow: 22:25
Well, it can go in all directions, and it can take us to very dramatic change in global economics. Iran has many possibilities of defending itself and imposing enormous pain on those who attack it. Last week, we all learned about the taking of a merchant vessel, a container vessel, Israeli-owned, in the Straits of Hormuz, and it's being directed to Iranian port. The Straits of Hormuz are under close watch of Iran, which has ground to naval vessel attack missiles capable of closing the straits and strangling the global movement of natural gas and oil.
That is to say, the amount of pain that any of Iran's enemies can think of imposing on Iran is held in check by the reality of the pain that Iran can impose on the world at large. So I am skeptical that this will go off in a wild direction, since all parties are aware of what I just said. However, tit-for-tat, at a less than awful level, are foreseeable or possible, and I sincerely hope that the conflict will remain contained.
Marzieh Hashemi: 24:14
Okay. And on that note, I thank both of you for being with me here on the Spotlight. Yves Engler, author and political activist out of Montreal. Gilbert Doctorow, independent international affairs analyst out of Brussels. And thank you viewers for being with us on another Spotlight, I'm Marzieh Hashemi, signing out for myself and all the crew right here in Tehran. Hope to see you right here next time.
24:35